<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1974 (12) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28139</link>
    <description>Compensation received on resumption of an impartible scheduled jagir retained the character of the original estate and did not become the holder&#039;s individual property. Because the estate was governed by primogeniture, the property continued to be treated in law as Hindu undivided family property, and the statutory conversion into compensation was only a substitution for the resumed estate. The jagir laws&#039; recognition of succession and renewal did not destroy impartibility, and the later wealth-tax deeming amendment supported the position that such estates were not previously individual property. Maintenance provisions under the abolition law did not alter this result absent proof of an independent maintenance right in the sons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (12) TMI 2 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28139</link>
      <description>Compensation received on resumption of an impartible scheduled jagir retained the character of the original estate and did not become the holder&#039;s individual property. Because the estate was governed by primogeniture, the property continued to be treated in law as Hindu undivided family property, and the statutory conversion into compensation was only a substitution for the resumed estate. The jagir laws&#039; recognition of succession and renewal did not destroy impartibility, and the later wealth-tax deeming amendment supported the position that such estates were not previously individual property. Maintenance provisions under the abolition law did not alter this result absent proof of an independent maintenance right in the sons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>